Hundreds of Union Janitors Fired Under Pressure From Feds (ICE audits of employers)

http://www.truthout.org/hundreds-union-janitors-fired-under-pressure-from-feds59210

"Federal immigration authorities have pressured one of San Francisco's major building service companies, ABM, into firing hundreds of its own workers. Some 475 janitors have been told that unless they can show legal immigration status, they will lose their jobs in the near future. Last October, 1,200 janitors working for ABM were fired in similar circumstances in Minneapolis. In November, over 100 janitors working for Seattle Building Maintenance lost their jobs. Minneapolis janitors belong to SEIU Local 26, Seattle janitors to Local 6 and San Francisco janitors to Local 87.

Nevertheless, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security has told ABM that they have flagged the personnel records of those workers. Weeks ago, ICE agents sifted through Social Security records and the I-9 immigration forms all workers have to fill out when they apply for jobs. They then told ABM that the company had to fire 475 workers who were accused of lacking legal immigration status.

President Obama said sanctions enforcement targets employers "who are using illegal workers in order to drive down wages - and oftentimes mistreat those workers." An ICE Worksite Enforcement Advisory claimed, "unscrupulous employers are likely to pay illegal workers substandard wages or force them to endure intolerable working conditions." ICE Director John Morton said the agency is auditing the records of 1,654 companies nationwide. "What kind of economic recovery goes with firing thousands of workers?" Miranda asked. "Why don't they target employers who are not paying taxes, who are not obeying safety or labor laws?"

Ironically the Bush administration proposed a regulation that would have required employers to fire any worker who provided an employer with a Social Security number that didn't match the SSA database. That regulation was then stopped in court by unions, the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center. The Obama administration, however, is implementing what amounts to the same requirement, with the same consequence of thousands of fired workers.

touted as a way to stop illegal immigration. That's what's being done here, right? Just because the illegals were union members does not change that. Yes, when you crack down on companies, illegals lose jobs.

Why is there anything wrong with that?

My daughter took notes at college for other students and needed to complete an I-9 to get paid. Why is complying with the law always such a problem for some?

:shrug:

I don't see anything wrond with going after companies who use illegal hiring practices.

How this is a bad thing the way the article implies? I dont understand how anyone managed to work a unionjob for 20+ years without valid documentation.

sometimes me and oftentimes family and friends. I feel for them but running away from the problems they have in their own country is not the answer. But no one said they were giving a shit for any harm they do to our workforce, did they? Well I am and it sucks that people will come here illegal and work for sometimes dimes on the dollar. I have no sympathy for them at all while they are here but I would like to help work on a solution for them in their own country.

Oklahoma has started going after the employers and let me tell you that has made a difference in the numbers of my brothers and sisters who have a job now.

My son was telling me about a recent event they'd witnessed. They are building a new motel/hotel near where he works and all of a sudden one day people started pouring out of that work site running in all directions, at first son said they, he and his co-worker were perplexed as to what was going on then they seen the ICE vehicles in the parking lot.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/

In the immigration debate, studies and research really make little difference because everyone "just knows" they are right from life lessons they have learned. (Shouts of "amnesty for illegals" or "racist/xenophobe" seem to overwhelm any use of "facts" or research - which makes it a perfect wedge issue for republicans. :) ) For the record, though, there are several recent studies that show the same result as the FactCheck one. I don't know of any that show the opposite.

By your logic, why wouldn't every legal immigrant or every college graduate mean one less job for a current worker? It isn't a zero-sum game in which every new worker means one less job for a current worker. New workers create the demand for goods and services just like current workers do.

It's why our economy functions with 140 million workers in 2000 (155 million in 2010) as it did with 62 in million 1950. The 78 million additional workers from 1950 to 2000 were not a drag on society because they created as many jobs (through their demand for goods and services) as they took. (Some industries and occupations were helped and some hurt by the new workers and growing economy between 1950 and 2000.) I don't think many of us think our country would be better off with 78 million workers today rather than 140 million, especially since the number of men in the workforce went up 72% while women increased by 257% and African Americans by 182%.

By the way of our 155 million workforce, 95% of them are legal, yet we spend our time worrying about the other 5% rather than the elite who have so damaged our society. "Us" (95%) vs "them" (5%) as the source of our problems is IMHO a distraction.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fopub%2Fmlr%2F2002%2F05%2Fart2full.pdf&ei=MT71S9eqKIK78gbO-bHiCg&usg=AFQjCNHHotnPisTuU-x3a_dfYfKQ-z2TPA&sig2=Ch7KCF1HoRfaNhvSycAloA

5% is half of that.

You're saying that half of the unemployed don't matter?

People need jobs, NOW. By hiring illegals, the rest of us pay for SS, insurance if they get hurt, etc.

The employer is the culprit. Put him out of business, make room for an honest employer.

if you do then that begs a question. Why shoot yourself in the foot by advocating for more people for the employers to use as pawns in their never ending fight to lower our/your wages. And don't even try to tell me what I've said isn't true either :-)

These employers should be held accountable, as should the unions who encourage employers to hire illegal immigrants.

"New jobless claims rise unexpectedly" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4389930

I doubt that you'll see many people disagreeing with this policy. Unless you support a completely open border policy, there's not much here to criticize. :shrug:

:shrug:

employees after an ICE audit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/us/30factory.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

LOS ANGELES — A clothing maker with a vast garment factory in downtown Los Angeles is firing about 1,800 immigrant employees in the coming days — more than a quarter of its workforce — after a federal investigation turned up irregularities in the identity documents the workers presented when they were hired. After months of discussions with ICE officials, the company moved on its own to terminate the workers because, Mr. Schey said, federal guidelines for such cases are “in a shambles.” The Bush administration proposed rules for employers to follow when workers’ documents do not match, but a federal court halted the effort and the Obama administration decided to abandon it.

Immigration officials said they would now focus on employers, primarily wielding the threat of civil complaints and fines, instead of raids and worker deportation. The firings at the company, American Apparel, have become a showcase for the Obama administration’s effort to reduce illegal immigration by forcing employers to dismiss unauthorized workers rather than through workplace raids. The firings, however, have divided opinion in California over the fallout of the new approach, especially at a time of record joblessness in the state and with a major, well-regarded employer as a target.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, called the dismissals “devastating,” and his office has insisted that the federal government should focus on employers that exploit their workers. American Apparel has been lauded by city officials and business leaders for paying well above the garment industry standard, offering health benefits and not long ago giving $18 million in stock to its workers.

But opponents of illegal immigration, including Representative Brian P. Bilbray, a Republican from San Diego who is chairman of a House caucus that opposes efforts to extend legal status to illegal immigrants, back the enforcement effort. They say American Apparel is typical of many companies that have “become addicted to illegal labor,” in Mr. Bilbray’s words.

in the absence of comprehensive reform. It just adds to the pool of workers who have to take any wage they can get.

Statistically a few on that list are documentation screwups. IMO the union should help them get that squared away.

The unions should be helping each worker resolve their issues - that's what unions are for!

The USA has failed if we no longer believe everyone who works contributes to the common good. If doing honest labor for a paycheck does not contribute to the common good then why the bloody hell is ANYONE working, citizen or not? Tell everyone to go home and close the shop. The dream is dead.

Treating undocumented workers as if they are subhuman. I thought we moved on from the 19th century.

employees enough time to clear up any mistakes?

undocumented workers because that gives management nowhere to go when they strike. If these union members will now be targeted, they will not join unions and management will again have an unprotected underclass they can exploit to the detriment of union workers.

Nice job, ICE! Doing corporate America's work on the taxpayer's dime!

It would be nice if ICE would also fine the employer (severely) and use the proceeds to deport those illegal aliens. But maybe they'll go home on their own if they are unable to find employment here.

Why kick them out of the country?

If it's a matter of depressed wages and poorer working conditions for everyone then we can fix that by demanding higher wages and better working conditions for EVERYONE.

allied conservatives.

http://www.truthout.org/obama-right-and-wrong-about-arizona-law59357

"The "attrition through enforcement" strategy can be readily traced to the research, analysis and policy advocacy of the restrictionist policy institutes in Washington, DC. These are the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA and Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

Although all three institutes have been leading voices of the attrition through enforcement response to illegal immigration, the restrictionist think-tank CIS can be credited as being the first to articulate the logic and dimensions of this strategy. In April 2006, CIS published a policy backgrounder titled "Attrition through Enforcement: A Cost-Effective Strategy to Shrink the Illegal Population."

Given that mass deportation would be both politically infeasible and immensely expensive, Vaughn explained that a much less-costly and more politically feasible strategy would be to escalate immigration enforcement by federal and local agencies. Two points in her six-point plan referred to local law enforcement measures that would make living and working in participating communities increasingly unbearable to unauthorized immigrants.

If, as a nation, we can't summon the courage to take the stick to the problem, we can at least make the carrot less appetizing.

to work under the table for below industry wages.

oh, wait....... :smoke: